Education office earns a big, fat 'F'

Today: She violated conflict of interest rules, she funneled tax dollars to herself, she got paid generously to go away and the county Office of Education never told the public.

Michael Fitzgerald

Today: She violated conflict of interest rules, she funneled tax dollars to herself, she got paid generously to go away and the county Office of Education never told the public.

What's not to like about the case of Margaret Salazar?

Most of it. That's why the state auditor criticized the San Joaquin County Office of Education last week.

County education chiefs counter they made the best deal they could.

The state auditor unearthed the Salazar case while examining the Migrant Ed Office's internal controls. Otherwise it never would have come to light.

Salazar was the regional director of San Joaquin's migrant education office until she "vacated her position rather suddenly" in December of 2011.

Using migrant program funds, Salazar "appears to have directed an estimated $144,000 in catering and janitorial expenses toward vendors she owned, or that were owned by her then-husband," the auditor's report says.

The catering costs were fair, the report goes on to say. But the janitorial costs were much higher than the going rate, or at least what the county pays now.

"We found evidence that the former regional director regularly approved rate increases for this janitorial services vendor," the report states.

Salazar also "replaced at least one former janitorial contract with a more expensive contract from her then-husband's company."

"I wasn't out to make millions," said Salazar. "I wasn't out to make any money. That was far beyond my thinking."

She said she was distracted by troubling family issues she does not want to discuss.

Her conduct appears to be a flagrant violation of the state government code, Section 1090, and the Political Reform Act of 1974. Both prohibit government officials from profiting from government contracts.

No matter that the catering company charged fair prices. Another company might have charged even lower prices. Or served better food.

And the janitorial contract appears to be nepotism, plain and simple.

Some would say Salazar should have been fired. I lean that way - except the SJCOE is complicit to some degree. Its operations people signed the contracts, too.

And - reality check - firing an educator is next to impossible. That helps explain what followed.

Salazar resigned, but only after the county office served her up three months of her $10,000 monthly salary, gave her all health benefits until June of 2012 and promised not to contest any unemployment claims she might make.

Her punishment for apparently illegal self-enrichment was further enrichment.

A SJCOE official sees it differently.

"I would say that the fact that she lost her job and was referred to the Commission on Teacher Credentialing - I would think that would dissuade most of the people I know from doing something of a similar nature," said Jim Thomas, deputy superintendent for business services.

The county office could have gone after any overcharges. It could have halted payments on further invoices, which were still coming in. It did neither.

SJCOE officials, reckoning that the probability of getting the money back was low, didn't try to recoup the funds.

The county office even continued paying Salazar's invoices for contract services rendered before the cancellations.

The SJCOE kept the case under the confidentiality of "personnel matters." It could be argued it had to. The auditor thinks county officials should have forwarded the case to the District Attorney. The DA now is looking into the case.

The county office's decision to keep the matter confidential raises questions whether it was acting in the public interest or perhaps also covering its tail.

If officials are going to make deals like this one, they have to live with the doubts.